Comments: Guns Aren't Evil; Except For Those Damned Machine Guns?

Good fisk.

I may be wrong, but I believe at the N Hollywood bank shootout, the only two fatalities were the perps.

Posted by David Codrea at October 3, 2005 07:40 AM

No infringement of the rights of another can be reasonable. Especially when prohibited by the highest law of the land.

How about reasonable property rights control? You can keep your wallet unless I deem it to be too full of cash, then it can be taken as a "reasonable" control measure against crime. Oh, wait, we already do that, don't we?

My, my, aren't we reasonable? Did you ever notice when somebody starts beseeching you to be reasonable they are almost always trying to abscond with something of yours?

I pride myself on being reasonable, I have made a counter-offer every time someone has asked me to be reasonable enough to let them steal from me. I ask them to "reasonably" abandon their request and voluntarily obey the highest law of the land, the constitution. That has invariably led to them trying to engage me in a discussion of "what is,is." Of course, they insist on defining all the terms. That is where we usually lose the argument as conservatives (the political kind, not the societal kind), becasuse we argue with them based on their definition of the terms and framing of the problem. Which means we are always arguing from a false premise. We must hold their feet to fire.

Never let the discussion go past the first misuse or false definition of the terms. In the case of the article being discussed above, in face to face encounter she should never have been able to proceed to any points while she would not concede that it is "unreasonable" to violate the God given, constitutionally guaranteed civil rights of citizen.

Of course, once she admitted the "reasonable" in her argument wasn't reasonable the debate is over. I guarantee that each and every one of those drones will walk away muttering about how unintelligent their opposition is that insists on less creative interpretations of the settled meanings of words. You will not get to destroy thier argument because they will walk away without making it, if you insist they use words honestly. However, they will have missed an opportunity to spread more of their anti-liberty toxin, won't they? That is a good thing.

Posted by straightarrow at October 3, 2005 12:25 PM

Nice fisk. This chick is clueless. So clueless, in fact, that I almost didn't bother sending her a reply (which I shall do later this evening). Suffice it to say, all of your points are correct (as usual) but the effort is wasted. This is the perfect example of someone who has come right out and stated that she doesn't believe anyone should be killed, regardless of their offense against her or someone else. She is without the most basic concept of self-defense and has no idea of the reality of a violent confrontation. To kill or be killed, to shoot, stab, claw, bite...whatever it takes, is simply not something that this person has considered. Thus, I believe your arguments to be lost on her. When I provide her with a web site to visit (gunfacts.org) I fully expect her to either a) ignore it or b) visit it, glance over it for items which offend her sensibilities, then either reinforce her own fragile psyche with her emotional response or poo-poo half-digested facts with more diatribe.

Regards,

Kevin

Posted by Kevin at October 3, 2005 02:31 PM

Every time I see someone drag out the old "mental illness" thing, I find myself picturing a woman who has been in therapy and marriage counseling for years to try to deal with the consequences of living with her abusive husband and their co-dependent reliationship that has completely destroyed her self-esteem to the point of at least one suicide attempt.

When she finally gets herself together enough to move out, initiate a divorce, and try to buy a gun to protect herself... should the government tell her no?

Posted by TriggerFinger at October 4, 2005 09:08 PM

I sent this missive to the comments section:

I wait to see if it posts

Note:

us code section 310, 311 and 312

'the militia'
all persons from 16 to 65 who are citizens or have announced they desire to become citizens
are the unorganized militia

militia have to turn out w/ their own weapons.

the militia has been called about three times in the last 100 years or so.
since 1934 the militia has been deprived by a $200 fine and background check by an agency which desires to ban civil possession of firearms

BATFE

the BATFE also has useless data base that can't tell if a citizen is in legal possession of a selectfire weapon. the database is corrupt (as is the agency) For details go to

http://www.nfaoa.org/resources.html

look at
Legal problems and issues resulting from NFA Branch Chief Tom Busey's 1995 discussion of errors in the NFRTR

nasty read.

now,

if you went to register to vote and paid your poll tax,

and then went to vote and the agency that took your tax couldn't tell if it was paid and voting w/out the tax was a minimum 25 year stretch in Leavenworth and the Agency didn't want you to vote anyway

would your rights be violated?

note:

in 1986 the Democrats rammed through an blanket ban on 'new' civilian owned machine guns.
sect 922(o)

it was attached as a killer amendment to the Firearms owners protection act the dimwits wouldn't vote to clean up BATFE abuses already generating a stink with further shredding the constitution.

(irony is not lost here)


if only voters registered and taxes paid prior to a day in 1986 were allowed to vote or only reporters taxed and registered prior to a specific date were allowed to write news articles or generate editorial content

would your rights be infringed?


everything the US army issues in selectfire (that's a machinegun in technical terms) now a gun that should cost about $12 (materials) is about $12,000 because the only ones 'available' in the civilian market are a, rare
about 250,000 registered in the NFA which the BATFE indicates is about 50% or worse inaccurate

or b flatly unavailable as the import or new production (for civilians) is banned.

how does one turn out for militia service if the tools to do so are a taxed out of the market ($200 per transaction)

or banned

(new production)

remember the Militia has been called out three times in the last 100 years (so far)
and the members or the unorganized militia have to turn up w/ their own weapons, and the regulars have only selectfire weapons.

check out the www.nfaoa.org site and http://www.jpfo.org/

there is a lot of reasons to have guns, self defense is one,

doing civic duty is a Constitutional one.

a militia requires the unorganized militia to have the same ordnance that regular infantry has.

the Constitutional note on letter of marque covers crew served weapons too,

so if Bill Gates wanted to build and by an Iowa class BB or an Ageis cruiser that's covered as well.

(including nuke tipped missiles) go read the constitution, you know the 16 or so pages preceding the First amendment.

It really helps understand the full picture

citizens have rights,

various governments have
powers.

its' clear and in English.

Posted by r at October 5, 2005 06:27 AM

hmmm,

shows 'no feedback posted' 24 hours after I sent my missive to them.

whatzat about? anyone else post feedback on the editorial?

Posted by r at October 6, 2005 07:24 AM

I posted twice and emailed her twice ... not a peep. Must be having technical difficulties ... yeah, that's it. ...or, maybe it's the wrong kind of free speech?

Posted by Wild Deuce at October 6, 2005 03:41 PM

I'm thinking (hopefully) she is slogging though the other 16 pages of constution.

but I suspect that she can't fathom any of it.
or what price 'free' speech requires.

ie respect other's opinions even if you disagree with them.

Posted by r at October 7, 2005 09:35 AM

I sent the Daily Mississippian a response the day this was posted, but never received a posting. I think they only post comments from students, not random people from around the county.

I stated in my reply that she should consider what kind of weapons citizens had in the late 1790s. They could own the most powerful weapon of the time, if they could afford it--a ship-of-the-line. Barring that, they could own, and with the right license of marquis and reprisal, operate the next best thing--a privateer. And most of those cannon onboard were privately purchased.

She's another one who gets the true meaning 2A to a point, and then refuses to extend her logic any further. Her restrictions are emotional, not rational.

Poshboy, Washington, DC.

Posted by Poshboy at October 16, 2005 08:01 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?